Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789-1861: Liberty, Tradition, and the Good Society (review)

Historians have often characterized the Southern tradition as universally conservative, claiming that a defense of slavery, promotion of states' rights, and sense of nationalism were its essential components. Tate maintains, however, that the Southern tradition was much more diverse than previously presented. While "there was widespread agreement . . . on political and constitutional principles," claims Tate, a closer examination of six prominent Southern intellectuals reveals considerable disagreement over the meaning of a "good society and what was needed 'to preserve, maintain, and extend it'" (5).

Tate begins his study by examining the lives of two Old Republican Virginians, John Randolph and John Taylor. He maintains that both men shared a common worldview that demanded the separation of state and society. Despite this similarity, Taylor and Randolph disagreed over what type of society would ensure the preservation of liberty and order. Taylor advocated the development of "a liberal society open to individuals of talent," while Randolph envisioned "a traditional society based on Christianity, patriarchy, and civilized discourse" (77). Both men, then, believed that the governing authority of the state could protect individual liberty, but they disagreed on the type of community, liberal or traditional, best designed to create a good society. This subtle but important distinction, maintains Tate, has been overshadowed by a scholarly focus on states' rights ideology.

Building on the political ideas espoused by these Virginians, post-1830s Southern conservatives, such as Nathaniel Beverley Tucker and William Gilmore Simms, continued to celebrate the "Principles of '98" (152). They departed from their predecessors, though, when it came to their social thought. Unlike Randolph's backward-looking traditionalism, both Tucker and Simms "desired traditional societies with strong social institutions that remained open to gradual change." By embracing change, both Tucker and Simms sought to promote the development of social conditions most likely to preserve order, liberty, and prosperity. For Tate, the Southern devotion to "nationalism, slavery and traditional institutions" first articulated by Randolph were transformed by Simms and Tucker, who redefined Southern conservatives as "modern Americans, people who sought stability and formed identity through conscious cultural constructions" (245).

Joseph Glover Baldwin and Johnson Jones Hooper, the final two biographies in this work, likewise professed a loyalty to states' rights, slavery, and an orderly society. Both men, for example, maintained that virtue, displayed through "individual self-control," would promote the development of a good society. Like Randolph and other conservative Southerners, they rejected the idea that civic institutions could transform weak individuals into good citizens. Instead, they believed that a good society emerged when virtuous individuals supported "the civic institutions that brought order" (293). Unlike the other four subjects of this study, though, Baldwin and Hooper promoted "government interference in the economy," believing that in a free and open society government could foster "economic progress and the rule of law" necessary to stabilize the social order (296). Whigs such as Baldwin and Hooper, then, could claim a common Southern identity with Democratic men like Simms and Tucker.

Tate does an admirable job dissecting the various intricate distinctions in social and political thought represented by the six men he showcases. Unfortunately, his decision to employ collective biography as the organizing principle conceals the potential significance of his argument. Throughout the text the author presents basic biographical information in an encyclopedic form. Consequently, the individual and the ideas discussed are often divorced from a broader historical context. Additionally, Tate is forced to repeat information with each individual. The end result is a book with large sections that distract the reader from the author's central claim.

Despite these problems, Tate successfully challenges the notion of a monolithic Southern tradition. He demonstrates that these men employed a variety of different perspectives on human nature, good government, and good society as they considered what it meant to be Southern. While they disagreed about what constituted a good society, all these men ultimately agreed on political and constitutional principles...